5 ms·

"Society", as you're describing it, is itself another abstract construct created by actual human beings to describe their process of undertaking relationships w

by Gormo 14y ago

"Society", as you're describing it, is itself another abstract construct created by actual human beings to describe their process of undertaking relationships with each other. The essence of property rights - property itself - is certainly elemental to the human condition, in or out of society; but the formal recognition of property rights within society is a prerequisite for there to be any society to speak of, outside of the most intimate familial relationships. Although a formal system of conventions for property rights is certainly contingent on general social acceptance, it's clear that any formalized notion of "society" is itself contingent upon the very same thing: individual human beings require exclusive control over well-defined amounts of matter and space in order to live, and human beings will therefore not generally form relationships that deny them the right to do so. In this sense, formal enforcement of property rights isn't so much about protecting property as it is about indeminfiying human beings against the risk to their property which might otherwise prevent them from forming relationships with others who are, at the moment, strangers, and therefore to allow society itself to evolve more complex and useful forms. In other words, without formal recognition of property rights, property would still exist, but "society" might not. All of this means that the protections for property rights afforded by formal institutions are not contingent on individuals delivering some arbitrary metric of value to society (a poor construction of the concept, noting that society isn't something distinct from actual human beings, so there's no "to" or "from" involved), but is rather necessitated by those individuals' mere existence within society.

nickpinkston 14y ago
I don't deny that there's an innate attribute to physical property rights - the lion gets mad when you take his kill. It's undeniable this is what a lot of what the early state was designed to enforce - land rights in post-tribal societies to use Fukuyama's model. However, corporations, bankruptcy, patents, etc. are all not state-of-nature constructs being reinforced formally. They are state innovations to encourage positive growth - do you deny this? To your closing point, it sounds like you're saying that "business models don't have to be approved by the government based on this metric", however this would deny that the myriad taxes, laws, etc. make money itself the imprecise metric by which we judge this social value. In an impossible situation, money would account for all positive and negative externalities, and getting rich would really mean that you truly helped society a great deal - unlike today where it could just mean that you played the system, etc. Thoughts?
- Gormo 14y ago
  > However, corporations, bankruptcy, patents, etc. are all not state-of-nature constructs being reinforced formally. They are state innovations to encourage positive growth - do you deny this? To some extent. I'd certainly regard bankruptcy and patents as creatures of positive law, but these legal tools aren't property rights: patents are grants of monopoly over mere concepts - to the extent of allowing the confiscation of the physical property of third parties simply because they used it to implement an idea similar to yours - and bankruptcy is effectively a license for people to renege on their promises and nullify the property rights of their creditors. Whether or not these are beneficial or useful policies is a separate question, but its clear that they contradict rather than protect property. Corporations, on the other hand, most certainly are natural constructs - people engaging in organized collaboration is a viable definition of society itself - and they certainly would exist with or without recognition in positive law, given any context in which property rights were indeed protected in a consistent and stable manner. > To your closing point, it sounds like you're saying that "business models don't have to be approved by the government based on this metric", however this would deny that the myriad taxes, laws, etc. make money itself the imprecise metric by which we judge this social value. Well, my entire comment was an elaboration of a single point: that property rights aren't contingent on the state's approval, but rather that the state's existence - as a state and not a mere cipher for the strongest inhabitants of what remains a raw state of nature - is contingent upon its protection of property rights. But we don't get to judge the 'social value' of people's activities as individuals, reducing things to simple rationalizations evaluated against subjective criteria. Money isn't an "imprecise metric by which we judge this social value", it's just an inert token used as a convenience to facilitate exchange, and the those taxes, laws, etc. aren't there to approve or disapprove of anyone's business model, but are rather (ostensibly) there to ensure that no one's rights are being violated within the undertaking of that business. Society itself - people in aggregate - judges the value of an endeavor by supplying that endeavor with the very rewards that you'd make subject to the approval of only an excessively formalized subset of that society. If the state intervenes to defend people against deceit or violence as they engage in commerce, then it's fulfilling its mission; if it intervenes to make that commerce itself contingent upon the whims of third parties, then it's subverting its mission. > In an impossible situation, money would account for all positive and negative externalities But your statement wasn't that there ought to be some means for assigning responsibility for negative externalities to those who created them; your statement implied that you believe that people ought to be obligated to produce positive macro-level externalites, else forfeit protection of their rights. Without intending any personal insult, I'd regard the latter as an unconscionable position. > unlike today where it could just mean that you played the system, etc. The same holds true of acquiring political power, and regardless of the institutional models and logical constructs we employ, society remains composed of the same set of people; so if you acknowledge the existence of malintent out in the world, how can you advocate admitting subjective discretion in the protection of rights?

by Gormo 14y ago

nickpinkston 14y ago

I don't deny that there's an innate attribute to physical property rights - the lion gets mad when you take his kill. It's undeniable this is what a lot of what the early state was designed to enforce - land rights in post-tribal societies to use Fukuyama's model. However, corporations, bankruptcy, patents, etc. are all not state-of-nature constructs being reinforced formally. They are state innovations to encourage positive growth - do you deny this? To your closing point, it sounds like you're saying that "business models don't have to be approved by the government based on this metric", however this would deny that the myriad taxes, laws, etc. make money itself the imprecise metric by which we judge this social value. In an impossible situation, money would account for all positive and negative externalities, and getting rich would really mean that you truly helped society a great deal - unlike today where it could just mean that you played the system, etc. Thoughts?

Gormo 14y ago
> However, corporations, bankruptcy, patents, etc. are all not state-of-nature constructs being reinforced formally. They are state innovations to encourage positive growth - do you deny this? To some extent. I'd certainly regard bankruptcy and patents as creatures of positive law, but these legal tools aren't property rights: patents are grants of monopoly over mere concepts - to the extent of allowing the confiscation of the physical property of third parties simply because they used it to implement an idea similar to yours - and bankruptcy is effectively a license for people to renege on their promises and nullify the property rights of their creditors. Whether or not these are beneficial or useful policies is a separate question, but its clear that they contradict rather than protect property. Corporations, on the other hand, most certainly are natural constructs - people engaging in organized collaboration is a viable definition of society itself - and they certainly would exist with or without recognition in positive law, given any context in which property rights were indeed protected in a consistent and stable manner. > To your closing point, it sounds like you're saying that "business models don't have to be approved by the government based on this metric", however this would deny that the myriad taxes, laws, etc. make money itself the imprecise metric by which we judge this social value. Well, my entire comment was an elaboration of a single point: that property rights aren't contingent on the state's approval, but rather that the state's existence - as a state and not a mere cipher for the strongest inhabitants of what remains a raw state of nature - is contingent upon its protection of property rights. But we don't get to judge the 'social value' of people's activities as individuals, reducing things to simple rationalizations evaluated against subjective criteria. Money isn't an "imprecise metric by which we judge this social value", it's just an inert token used as a convenience to facilitate exchange, and the those taxes, laws, etc. aren't there to approve or disapprove of anyone's business model, but are rather (ostensibly) there to ensure that no one's rights are being violated within the undertaking of that business. Society itself - people in aggregate - judges the value of an endeavor by supplying that endeavor with the very rewards that you'd make subject to the approval of only an excessively formalized subset of that society. If the state intervenes to defend people against deceit or violence as they engage in commerce, then it's fulfilling its mission; if it intervenes to make that commerce itself contingent upon the whims of third parties, then it's subverting its mission. > In an impossible situation, money would account for all positive and negative externalities But your statement wasn't that there ought to be some means for assigning responsibility for negative externalities to those who created them; your statement implied that you believe that people ought to be obligated to produce positive macro-level externalites, else forfeit protection of their rights. Without intending any personal insult, I'd regard the latter as an unconscionable position. > unlike today where it could just mean that you played the system, etc. The same holds true of acquiring political power, and regardless of the institutional models and logical constructs we employ, society remains composed of the same set of people; so if you acknowledge the existence of malintent out in the world, how can you advocate admitting subjective discretion in the protection of rights?